Eukanuba + Longevity = No from FTC

The Federal Trade Commission has just told Mars Petcare Eukanuba the company’s advertising claims “constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the making of false advertisements”.

“Deceptive” pet food advertising runs rampant. Pet food regulatory authorities (FDA and State Department of Agriculture) could stop the deception/misleading/false advertisements…but they don’t. All regulatory authorities tend to look the other way at misleading advertising claims. Thanks to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), one of those “deceptive” pet food commercials are gone.

The Mars Petcare Eukanuba commercials told consumers “With Eukanuba, dogs live 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan; and Eukanuba brand dog foods enable dogs to live exceptionally long lives.” Below is the YouTube.com version of the television commercial FTC found as “deceptive” from Mars Petcare Eukanuba UK. (While the advertising has been stopped in the U.S., the Mars Petcare advertising continues in other countries.)

The FTC found the statements made in the advertising are “false or misleading or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made.”

FTC continues with “In fact, A. Scientific tests do not prove that, with Eukanuba, dogs live 30 percent longer than their typical lifespan; and B. Scientific tests do not prove that Eukanuba brand dog foods enable dogs to live exceptionally long lives.”

And FTC stated (bold added) “Among other things, the evidence relied on by Respondent for its representations concerning the Eukanuba brand dog food consisted primarily of results from a single study, the results of which showed no significant difference in the median age at death of the dogs in the study relative to the typical age at death of dogs of the same breed.”

In other words, the FTC found Mars Petcare Eukanuba made “false or misleading” claims in advertising based on no evidence; dogs consuming Eukanuba did not live “30% longer” as the advertising claimed.

The FTC only issued a ‘slap on the wrist’ to Mars Petcare providing this resolve to the false advertising: “The proposed order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits Mars Petcare from engaging in similar deceptive acts or practices in the future. First, it prohibits the company from making any misleading or unsubstantiated claims that its Eukanuba-brand pet food or any other pet food will enable any dogs to extend their lifespan by 30 percent or more or live exceptionally long lives. It also prohibits the company from making misleading or unsubstantiated claims regarding the health benefits of any pet food, and requires the company to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to back up any such claims.”

But…the FTC will accept public comments on the issue until September 6, 2016. If you would like to post your comment on the above issue, Click Here.

My comment sent to FTC…

As a representative of pet food consumers, I thank the FTC for their action on this issue. Misleading and false advertising runs rampant in pet food; stopping just one misleading claim benefits pet food consumers.

We ask the FTC to consider the profits made by Mars Petcare during the time frame the subject misleading advertising ran; Mars Petcare undoubtedly made significant profit based on advertising the Commission found to be false. I recommend FTC consider a financial penalty that would would be comparative to the profit made by Mars Petcare during the time frame the advertising ran in the U.S. The financial penalty could be donated to various animal shelters/animal rescue organizations.

I hope the FTC takes a close examination of the many misleading and false advertising claims in pet food. Should the Commission walk into any major chain pet store, they will find a multitude of misleading images on pet food labels. Everything from roasted meat to grilled meat images misleading consumers into belief the pet food is made from grilled or roasted human quality foods – when nothing similar is true. While we certainly thank the Commission for this action, consumers hope the FTC looks beyond this one instance. Pet food consumers deserve accurate and honest advertising in all pet food products.

One small victory! Hopefully more will follow. The food industry ( both human and pet) is such a rich lobby that it is a power structure that stands against all opposition. Media is supported by the large corporations that own many pet food companies and will not expose their deadly practices.
Susan is a very strong soldier that needs more support.

Okay, I left a comment: I included your entire comment with your signature, at the end of mine:
I agree with everything written in the comment below. This type of “prolonged longevity and enhanced intelligence” marketing by the Iams company has been going on for more than a decade, without a peep from the FDA who we PAY to protect us from these crimes. I am encouraged that the FDA is finally doing a small part of their job. Since you are not doing what our taxes pay you to do, I no longer buy commercial dog food (I make my own), and frankly do not depend on the FDA for any truth, accuracy or safety. This is shameful.
I was assigned a tracking # 15, so we need more comments, folks!

Duh: I left a follow-up comment:
Sorry for my error in tracking number of 00015.
I forgot I was writing to the FTC and not the useless FDA.
THANK YOU for finally stopping this crime; we’d all be grateful if you went after all the others…like labeling feed as pet “food” and all the other misleading advertising that is rampant in the pet food industry.

I sent one as well. I wrote that the misleading pictures on packages needs to be stopped. There are those who can not read well and go by pictures
Which are very misleading. I know persons that are not able to read well, and I do my best to teach them and give them good advice.
I did use some of yours but changed it to make it mine. .

I guess I’m being overly emotional again. But how sad and unfair to target consumers who hope their dogs will live longer based on a simple purchase. Who wouldn’t want their companion to be with them (and healthier) for as long as possible! Again, such deceit speaks to the complete absence of conscience in an industry that’s not even hard up for profit.

On the flip side, if Mars has the gall to claim their targeted diet extends lifespan (what .. no whole food supplementation) then does this conversely mean that a dog is expected to die at term from a non-targeted diet of questionable ingredients? Or does it just all average out. In other words, because the diet is promising “longer” life, as opposed to a crappy diet possibly shortening one, then will the dog just live to expected term anyway? And about the 30% (quite an ambitious number) was that meant to be an easy number for consumers to digest. Or are they truly assuming someone would believe that 30% of 10 years means living a whole 3 years longer? That’s a long time!! Did they even care about the quality of those years.

I am consoled (or maybe unsettled) by the idea that a company is actually doing testing on the effect of their diet. But how in the world do you measure a 30% percent increase in anything, much less life span. Did they feed the same food to the same litter for exactly 10 years, and then watched what happened. Meaning did 3 in a litter of 10 just live “longer” than the others? Or did some puppies in the litter live 3 years longer than the expected 10 years. BIG DIFFERENCE.

If they did do a study, then their claim couldn’t be contested, except that it is. Does it mean they just made up the test which never happened. Or that they tested, and lied about the results? Again big DIFFERENCE. So what else is the company making up, or lying about (even worse)!

The FTC should hand the case over to the FDA to look into all their claims. To verify the company’s records period.

Maybe we should be taking more concerns to the FTC, since FDA and AAFCO don’t want to hear what we have to say!

I’ve seen the new “Spot Farms” powdered food that you’re supposed to add water to to make your pet’s food. It looks like powder, but the “finished product” representation on the package certainly does not look like it is just that powder with water added to it, it shows texture and colors . . . well, it’s just questionable to me.
PLUS, they make the claim of “Human Grade” on all of their products. I’m wondering if they went through the same legal battles Honest Kitchen did to be able to say “Human Grade”.

Since they are owned by Purdue, the big chicken producer, I’m really hesitant to believe that it is all “Human Grade”

Susan, can you look into this? If the FTC is going to be cracking down on false or misleading advertising, this looks like a good one to check into.